Arrow Lethality - Shoot Thru Really Ideal??

[Marble]

Bow hunting isn't gun hunting.

And that post was too long...maybe I dont have the patients I once had. ...

 

[Boxerboxer]

And that post was too long...maybe I dont have the patients I once had. ...

Spoken like a retired doctor.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

 

[Read1t48]

I have really enjoyed reading this thread. It’s informative with good insight from many years of experience. I wondered the same thing as the OP, but now I understand. Thanks to the OP for posting and all the contribution from those that replied. My few years of archery experience have led me to agree with the majority of the feedback: full pass thrus in the right spot provide short track jobs.

 

[ozyclint]

I generally try to use the widest head that can be reasonably expected to achieve 2 holes.

another advantage to a pass through is that the recovered arrow can offer valuable evidence about the hit and this evidence can drastically effect the outcome in regards to subsequent decisions about tracking.

 

[wildernessmaster]

Bow hunting isn't gun hunting.

Thanks but I am well aware of that. I am also well aware of the differences in energy between the two and mortality aspects.

 

[406unltd]

Ridiculous conversation and everyone knows it. Hit em good with a well built arrow tipped with a sharp BH that cuts and doesn’t just push internals aside, get your pass through, and start packing your meat. This isn’t a rifle and is a completely different conversation. I’ve also had elk die within 50 yds from bullets that passed all the way through and a couple that stayed inside. Terminal performance of a bullet striking the vitals will kill whether that bullet passes through or not. This isn’t the er, and the overwhelming majority of experienced guys that have been involved with harvesting animals with either style weapon will agree.

 

[wildernessmaster]

Ok... Seems like a lot of responses think I am an idiot...

For the record, I am an engineer by education and advocation, as well as have spent over 20 years doing emergency medicine as a special forces medic. I have probably seen more "cuts" and "gun trauma" than most of you... (but maybe not Ashby ).

So I understand:
1) guns/arrows two different things with two different modalities. I apologize if my original post mislead some of you to think I thought they were the same. They are not, but BOTH modalities of killing involve the same underlying principles (energy, wound channel, damage to critical components...).
2) the differences in knives and bats - which is the difference between arrows and bullets. Again at the end of the day they both rely on the same fundamentals to kill.

Now to some of the assertions:
1. While energy dumping is not the primary means of an arrow killing, it is does still play a role. All trauma requires some energy. That "razor" (broadhead) wont' cut without it. Any energy leaving the animal (shoot thru) is energy not killing the animal.

2. The body is not a contiguous web of critical organs and critical blood vessels. In fact, I can not tell you how many time I have seen both knives and bullets have enter and exit bodies and not touch anything critical. So the theory of a shoot thru cuts more stuff - is only somewhat valid. It may, it may not. Most of the critical blood vessels you would want to cut (to kill) are in and around the heart.

3. [From Explosive Theory] (to contradict the not having hydrostatic shock)... Low energy explosive waves can create destruction as well as high energy. In fact, high energy (akin to a bullet) tend to cut. We use to use C4 charges to literally slice metal like a knife. Low energy waves (akin to an arrow) actually can produce more damage. Look at the Oklahoma city bombing - it was ANFO - very low energy. So I totally disagree with Jeremy Johnson on that one, as do a lot of wound experts. The theory of hydrostatic killing is a very controversial one and unproven. I believe the evidence in time will more agree with Nathan Foster (terminalballistics.com) on neurogenic vs hydrostatic damage (which btw goes back to terminal energy being important).

4. The "killing vitals" on almost all animals are: 1) blood, 2) heart 3) brain/spinal tissue... everything else is a secondary attack on those. So deflating the lungs attacks the heart and blood (no O2, heart starves), or hitting a pancreas or liver is a blood attack.

5. In a typical "good" shot, the core vital you want to hit is the heart and the blood vessels around the heart. Given a "big" broadhead maybe 2" wide you will be hoping to whack the heart and 1 major branch off the vessels leading in - that's about the best.

6. There is a myth of "deflating" the lungs by the arrow going through them - BS! Your arrow does not deflate them. The breathing, post arrow entry (or exit), with an opening to the outside world does due to the differences in pressures. BUT.... remember it doesn't take much to cover a chest hole and create a seal that can stop or significantly slow that. Drops of blood (from that wound opening you want to bleed so you can track) act as a great barrier to pressure dropping - and as soon as they hit air they start getting sticky (from coagulation). That said, this MAY BE the only true value in shoot thru - that you get two holes and both lungs deflating - but you can still accomplish that with a non shoot thru.

Look folks, in starting this thread I wanted to start a discussion. I understand (fully) the general beliefs and theories AROUND shoot thru arrow killing. That said, I started this because it does not fully jive from a "fact" scenario (energy, physiology and terminal ballistics).

Not wanting any wars, but I am calling somewhat BS on the full "beliefs" that have lead to shoot thru. That said, anecdotally I have to accept there is some basis for it working because it seems like shoot thrus produce results.

 

[Reburn]

On the physics front, the shoot thrus are actually an indication that the terminal energy is not being left in the thing you want to kill. To kill something even with sharp "knives" (broadheads) an element of that is imparting full terminal energy into the body. Otherwise potential destruction (i.e., potential energy) is not dumped into the body.

Not picking on you bud so please don't take it that way but this is the question that is causing people to say this isnt gun hunting. There isnt enough energy to create hydrostatic shock in a game sized animal any piece of archery.

As covered before the is zero desire to "leave energy" in the animal with archery. You want all of your "energy" to remain with your arrow to facilitate deeper penetration with the goal of a complete pass through. The only reason to figure out what energy your producing is to aide in your selection of broadhead. With Cut On Contact heads there is no need to even think about it as the LBS needed to push a COC head like and iron will through is less than 20 LBS. Mechs need s higher LBS due to the opening mechinisim on the head. Why you want a pass through with a sharp head has been well covered.

 

[wildernessmaster]

Not picking on you bud so please don't take it that way but this is the question that is causing people to say this isnt gun hunting. There isnt enough energy to create hydrostatic shock in a game sized animal any piece of archery.

As covered before the is zero desire to "leave energy" in the animal with archery. You want all of your "energy" to remain with your arrow to facilitate deeper penetration with the goal of a complete pass through. The only reason to figure out what energy your producing is to aide in your selection of broadhead. With Cut On Contact heads there is no need to even think about it as the LBS needed to push a COC head like and iron will through is less than 20 LBS. Mechs need s higher LBS due to the opening mechinisim on the head. Why you want a pass through with a sharp head has been well covered.

Please read the long response I just wrote...

 

[Drenalin]

I don't and will not pretend to understand all of the physics and physiology associated with killing an animal with archery tackle. But the points made about full pass-thru producing better blood trails and the evidence left behind on the recovered arrow are often vital to recovery. And without that aspect, the kill doesn't really mean anything. Assuming appropriate shot placement (I like lungs for target size and margin for error), I'll personally take a pass-thru every time I can get it.

 

[wildernessmaster]

I don't and will not pretend to understand all of the physics and physiology associated with killing an animal with archery tackle. But the points made about full pass-thru producing better blood trails and the evidence left behind on the recovered arrow are often vital to recovery. And without that aspect, the kill doesn't really mean anything. Assuming appropriate shot placement (I like lungs for target size and margin for error), I'll personally take a pass-thru every time I can get it.

I understand that aspect of it...

That said, just this past season, with a gun, I got a liver shot (pass thru). As you know those bleed very slowly and take a while to die. More so they leave very little trail. But I still tracked the animal and harvested him even though it took a full day and I had to cross 2 mountains to do so.

 

[Reburn]

Ok... Seems like a lot of responses think I am an idiot...

For the record, I am an engineer by education and advocation, as well as have spent over 20 years doing emergency medicine as a special forces medic. I have probably seen more "cuts" and "gun trauma" than most of you... (but maybe not Ashby ).

So I understand:
1) guns/arrows two different things with two different modalities. I apologize if my original post mislead some of you to think I thought they were the same. They are not, but BOTH modalities of killing involve the same underlying principles (energy, wound channel, damage to critical components...). Yes destroying Vital organs.
2) the differences in knives and bats - which is the difference between arrows and bullets. Again at the end of the day they both rely on the same fundamentals to kill. Yes destroying Vital organs.

Now to some of the assertions:
1. While energy dumping is not the primary means of an arrow killing, it is does still play a role. All trauma requires some energy. That "razor" (broadhead) wont' cut without it. Any energy leaving the animal (shoot thru) is energy not killing the animal. No. Energy of a bow is used to push the broadhead through vitals. That is all

2. The body is not a contiguous web of critical organs and critical blood vessels. In fact, I can not tell you how many time I have seen both knives and bullets have enter and exit bodies and not touch anything critical. So the theory of a shoot thru cuts more stuff - is only somewhat valid. It may, it may not. Most of the critical blood vessels you would want to cut (to kill) are in and around the heart. How many wounds to both lungs or heart have you seen recover without treatment? Vitals are vitals. No one is proposing to shoulder shoot a deer and hope the meager energy of 100 LBS puts it down. Vital shots are the only way to kill with arrows.

3. [From Explosive Theory] (to contradict the not having hydrostatic shock)... Low energy explosive waves can create destruction as well as high energy. In fact, high energy (akin to a bullet) tend to cut. We use to use C4 charges to literally slice metal like a knife. Low energy waves (akin to an arrow) actually can produce more damage. Look at the Oklahoma city bombing - it was ANFO - very low energy. So I totally disagree with Jeremy Johnson on that one, as do a lot of wound experts. The theory of hydrostatic killing is a very controversial one and unproven. I believe the evidence in time will more agree with Nathan Foster (terminalballistics.com) on neurogenic vs hydrostatic damage (which btw goes back to terminal energy being important). Doesn’t apply to arrows. The diffrenece between anfo and c4 while significant is still a moot point. Both are still producing massive amounts of energy. No arrow even comes close to anfo

4. The "killing vitals" on almost all animals are: 1) blood, 2) heart 3) brain/spinal tissue... everything else is a secondary attack on those. So deflating the lungs attacks the heart and blood (no O2, heart starves), or hitting a pancreas or liver is a blood attack. The goal in bow hunting is to create a cut that creates massive bleeding that causes a blood pressure drop and blood loss. Blood loss into the lungs is the same as blood that is lost outside the body. I don’t know anyone that aims for a CNS hit with a bow.

5. In a typical "good" shot, the core vital you want to hit is the heart and the blood vessels around the heart. Given a "big" broadhead maybe 2" wide you will be hoping to whack the heart and 1 major branch off the vessels leading in - that's about the best. There are tons of blood vessels in the lungs still that is how the blood gets oxygen.

6. There is a myth of "deflating" the lungs by the arrow going through them - BS! Your arrow does not deflate them. The breathing, post arrow entry (or exit), with an opening to the outside world does due to the differences in pressures. BUT.... remember it doesn't take much to cover a chest hole and create a seal that can stop or significantly slow that. Drops of blood (from that wound opening you want to bleed so you can track) act as a great barrier to pressure dropping - and as soon as they hit air they start getting sticky (from coagulation). That said, this MAY BE the only true value in shoot thru - that you get two holes and both lungs deflating - but you can still accomplish that with a non shoot thru. Yes but a pass though will cut more then a non pass through. 2 lungs damaged is better then 1. If your calculating just enough energy to hit both lungs and stick of the opposite side of lung 2 what happens when you hit ribs and loose energy on the way to lung 1? Your chances of punching both lungs is diminished. One lung damaged isn’t enough as you said above. Serious question what happens when both lungs fill with fluid? If you a big enough stud to shoot the heart everytime a pass through isn’t needed. Im not that good of a shot and at 50 yards I don’t want to have to hope I can hit the heart exactly.

Look folks, in starting this thread I wanted to start a discussion. I understand (fully) the general beliefs and theories AROUND shoot thru arrow killing. That said, I started this because it does not fully jive from a "fact" scenario (energy, physiology and terminal ballistics).

Not wanting any wars, but I am calling somewhat BS on the full "beliefs" that have lead to shoot thru. That said, anecdotally I have to accept there is some basis for it working because it seems like shoot thrus produce results.

Ok. Same statements all apply. I haven't gotten the impression that you are thought an idiot. My responses above in red.

 

[Reburn]

To further the conversation. Using lbs force in guns has been wildly debated in the gun and long range forum. It is generally understood by the more advanced guys that destroyed vitals make kill shots not lbs force. Destroyed vitals is accomplished by bullet placement and bullet construction / design. Lbs of force has zero to do with either of those factors. Velocity is important as it is a direct factor to bullet expansion due to bullet design. Leaving force in the animal isnt the goal with bullets the goal is to have massive internal injuries due to the bullet expansion and fragmentation. Lbs of energy left in the animal is mostly a useless metric. A pass through with guns usually indicates poor bullet expansion which is why its avoided not because energy isnt left. A bad shot not in the vitals is universal wheter it be arrows or bullets. Both will kill equally as bad.

 

[Billy Goat]

I think your analogy of the difference of a bat and a knife is a good one, however they don't kill the same way, one is hemorrhage, the other is blunt force trauma. Put the same amount of energy behind both and when using low energy, which will be more effective. Like say someone had a bat in a hand or a knife, they had one arm to swing and hit you in the chest with it. The bat isn't likely to kill you, the knife on the other hand has a pretty good chance of doing targeted damage to vitals. Hell use a baseball versus a throwing knife. A baseball can certainly kill you, but it's going to take a lot more energy than a knife. Bow hunting is the practice of using lower energy to make clean kills, it uses different equipment and works a little different.

Blood trails can be an important part of game recovery with bow hunting, even with perfectly placed shots.

 

[LostArra]

Everytime (other than a spinal shot) that the arrow is sticking out part way the animal takes off running like crazy! I much rather have an animal die in sight, and/or get a second arrow in if I can! For me a complete pass through on the first shot is always the goal.

Amen! Granted, most arrows break off and/or fall out but a hanging arrow is like a riding crop to most animals and they run like the wind with the arrow flapping against their side.

 

[Drenalin]

I understand that aspect of it...

That said, just this past season, with a gun, I got a liver shot (pass thru). As you know those bleed very slowly and take a while to die. More so they leave very little trail. But I still tracked the animal and harvested him even though it took a full day and I had to cross 2 mountains to do so.

I will clarify that my previous post was only with respect to archery hunting. With a rifle, I am more willing to push the envelope on shot placement and do not have a preference on whether the bullet passes through or remains in the body cavity (assuming good shot placement). I've had deer absolutely devastated by bullets that did not pass through, instead unleashing all sorts of hell in the form of bullet and bone fragments inside the chest of the animal. In a way, those experiences make me more open to the ideas expressed in your original post, but for reasons stated in my previous response, I'll still take the pass-thru when talking arrows. I've also had bullets pass through both lungs and watched the animals drop and expire within dozens of yards of their original position. So my experiences with a rifle lead me to not care one or the other where the bullet ultimately terminates, as long as I get it into the vitals. My experiences with a bow and arrow are more limited, in that I have never not had a full pass-thru. That is by design and is my personal preference; I have passed many shots that others may have taken because I didn't like the angle of animal. Not that I'm right and someone else is wrong, that's just my preference. I have lost two animals to high lung and single lung shots over the years; in those instances (where blood is also sparse and the evidence left on the arrow of little use), maybe I would have been better off not to have had the arrow pass completely through? Maybe the same is true of some other marginal hits, like liver? I don't know.

Congrats on the kill last season, and good on you for sticking with a very difficult track job. I've been in on tracking a couple of liver hits and it is no fun.

 

[5MilesBack]

For the record, I am an engineer by education and advocation

Then my advice will most likely be discarded, but here it is anyway: Don't over-think it!

It is unreal how fast animals die when you deflate both lungs. So passthrough......no passthrough.......just deflate both lungs. The elk in my avatar was down and dead in 2.5 seconds after deflating both lungs with a 1.5" 3-blade mechanical head. The bad stuff generally happens when you only get one lung or even less and only one hole.

Oh, and as for rifle.......I much prefer a bullet that stays together and passes through........after it has caused major damage through the wound channel. Those elk generally don't go far, and if they do they leave a good trail.

 

[bsnedeker]

Ok... Seems like a lot of responses think I am an idiot...

For the record, I am an engineer by education and advocation, as well as have spent over 20 years doing emergency medicine as a special forces medic. I have probably seen more "cuts" and "gun trauma" than most of you... (but maybe not Ashby ).

So I understand:
1) guns/arrows two different things with two different modalities. I apologize if my original post mislead some of you to think I thought they were the same. They are not, but BOTH modalities of killing involve the same underlying principles (energy, wound channel, damage to critical components...).
2) the differences in knives and bats - which is the difference between arrows and bullets. Again at the end of the day they both rely on the same fundamentals to kill.

Now to some of the assertions:
1. While energy dumping is not the primary means of an arrow killing, it is does still play a role. All trauma requires some energy. That "razor" (broadhead) wont' cut without it. Any energy leaving the animal (shoot thru) is energy not killing the animal.

2. The body is not a contiguous web of critical organs and critical blood vessels. In fact, I can not tell you how many time I have seen both knives and bullets have enter and exit bodies and not touch anything critical. So the theory of a shoot thru cuts more stuff - is only somewhat valid. It may, it may not. Most of the critical blood vessels you would want to cut (to kill) are in and around the heart.

3. [From Explosive Theory] (to contradict the not having hydrostatic shock)... Low energy explosive waves can create destruction as well as high energy. In fact, high energy (akin to a bullet) tend to cut. We use to use C4 charges to literally slice metal like a knife. Low energy waves (akin to an arrow) actually can produce more damage. Look at the Oklahoma city bombing - it was ANFO - very low energy. So I totally disagree with Jeremy Johnson on that one, as do a lot of wound experts. The theory of hydrostatic killing is a very controversial one and unproven. I believe the evidence in time will more agree with Nathan Foster (terminalballistics.com) on neurogenic vs hydrostatic damage (which btw goes back to terminal energy being important).

4. The "killing vitals" on almost all animals are: 1) blood, 2) heart 3) brain/spinal tissue... everything else is a secondary attack on those. So deflating the lungs attacks the heart and blood (no O2, heart starves), or hitting a pancreas or liver is a blood attack.

5. In a typical "good" shot, the core vital you want to hit is the heart and the blood vessels around the heart. Given a "big" broadhead maybe 2" wide you will be hoping to whack the heart and 1 major branch off the vessels leading in - that's about the best.

6. There is a myth of "deflating" the lungs by the arrow going through them - BS! Your arrow does not deflate them. The breathing, post arrow entry (or exit), with an opening to the outside world does due to the differences in pressures. BUT.... remember it doesn't take much to cover a chest hole and create a seal that can stop or significantly slow that. Drops of blood (from that wound opening you want to bleed so you can track) act as a great barrier to pressure dropping - and as soon as they hit air they start getting sticky (from coagulation). That said, this MAY BE the only true value in shoot thru - that you get two holes and both lungs deflating - but you can still accomplish that with a non shoot thru.

Look folks, in starting this thread I wanted to start a discussion. I understand (fully) the general beliefs and theories AROUND shoot thru arrow killing. That said, I started this because it does not fully jive from a "fact" scenario (energy, physiology and terminal ballistics).

Not wanting any wars, but I am calling somewhat BS on the full "beliefs" that have lead to shoot thru. That said, anecdotally I have to accept there is some basis for it working because it seems like shoot thrus produce results.

I don't think anyone thinks you are an idiot. This response I think shows definitively that you suffer from a common issue many engineers have: You are overthinking this! You are now comparing C4 explosives to archery!

 

[KyleR1985]

This is a simple experiment for you to run - Shoot a 40-50lb bow, with a <400gr arrow, with a wide cut razor sharp mechanical broadhead. This will most definitely lead to lots of non pass throughs. I will continue to shoot a 70+lb bow, with a >500 grain arrow, and cut on contact razor sharp small diameter head. This will most definitely lead to lots of pass throughs. Let's check back in after ten years. I'm going to have put an arrow through 30-50 animals in that time period. I am willing to bet any amount of money that you are, that my recovery rate exceeds yours, and average distance animal travels after shot is less than yours.

This isn't to say that a razor sharp broadhead bouncing around inside an animal's gooey bits is good for it. It's also not to say that on occasion, that happening can open up a vessel or organ that otherwise wouldn't have - leading to a quick death. Surely, this happens on occasion, and probably more often than "team pass through" would like to admit.

 

[Marble]

Spoken like a retired doctor.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

Lol